Negate Magic...

[Temporalmage]

What's your interpretation of Negate Magic?

[cornholioprime]

POLL: "....I have a separate Answer and will explain Below...."

Canon states that the Spell "Negate Magic" (an 8th level Invocation) ".....will instantly negate the efffects of most Magic."

The SPECIFIC types of Magic that are not negated by the Spell are listed in the Spell Description.

The Spell also allows 'saves' against its effects.

Since the Spell Description states something to the effect of "...save against the magic in place..." (the Magic resisting the effect of the Negate Magic Spell), but the Desciption does not specify whether it is Magic (Singular Spell Effect), Magic (field of Magic-Negating Effect) or Magic (ALL Spell Effects on the Target at the time of casting), the IN-GAME, Canon could be easily argued either way -unless, of course, KevSim addressed/cleared up this Issue in other Books.

Personally, I would rule (allow in my game) that any Magicks on the Target, at the time of Casting of Negate Magic and regardless of number currently in effect, INDIVIDUALLY get a Roll to save against the Magic-Cancelling Spell. Since it is 'only' an 8th Level Spell, I would not allow 'Negate Magic' to automatically wipe out ALL Spells on the Target on a failed save; doing so would, IMHO, give the Spell the potency or near-potency of the 11th Level Invocation "Anti-Magic Cloud" on a failed Save. Of course, any Spell Effects that this Invocation is specifically said not to affect, would not be affected.

At least, that would seem to be a pretty good compromise, no...

[Borast]

Assuming it works the same way as the Dispel Magic in the "other" game (I don't play 3rd or 3.5), it can be cast "generally," or it can be cast specifically. Cast generally (on a person, thing, or area), it will effect EVERYTHING in the area of effect. Cast speciically, it can go so far as to neutralise a specific spell on a specific person (once the mage picks-up the appropriate spell from the melange of spells on some one).

Take your pick.

Admittedly, once I actually sit-down and read the spell...that may change!

[cornholioprime]

Assuming it works the same way as the Dispel Magic in the "other" game (I don't play 3rd or 3.5), it can be cast "generally," or it can be cast specifically. Cast generally (on a person, thing, or area), it will effect EVERYTHING in the area of effect. Cast speciically, it can go so far as to neutralise a specific spell on a specific person (once the mage picks-up the appropriate spell from the melange of spells on some one).

Take your pick.

Admittedly, once I actually sit-down and read the spell...that may change!

Yep, this Spell's Description actually isn't very specific at all. An "Open-to-Personal-Interpretation-Spell" if ever there was one.

[Temporalmage]

Yep, this Spell's Description actually isn't very specific at all. An "Open-to-Personal-Interpretation-Spell" if ever there was one.

Which is why I opened this topic, to get peaples opinion. Was hoping that Doom would give his insight honestly.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's never come up, but if it ever does I have a solution.
Just see how D20 handles Dispel Magic.

[cornholioprime]

It's never come up, but if it ever does I have a solution.
Just see how D20 handles Dispel Magic.

In that OTHER Game, Dispel Magic works on most Spells immediately, without a save; only such Spells that are SPECIFICALLY stated to be immune to Dispel Magic, can withstand its effects. The rough equivalent to that Spell is the 11th Level Invocation "Anti-Magic Cloud." I personally would make "Negate Magic" individually roll to Save for EACH Spell Effect on the Target at the time of Spell Casting, because I would not like to have a Mage expend the PPE for a Level 8 Spell, which has a TOUCH Range, just to see it Negate only ONE Spell or Spell Effect. Likewise, I didn't want the Mage to get the 'benefit' of "Anti-Magic Cloud," against which the effects can be saved against, but requires a High Roll to do so (18, 19, or 20 unmodified Roll and those who save STILL find their Magicks reduced in Range/Duration/Intensity by HALF). The best balance that I could come up with -although like other Posts have stated, I also have not come up against this scenario yet.

[Mack]

For pure fun, I like the poll's first option.

Realistically, I don't know. I can see rational arguements for any of the options.

[Ice Dragon]

What's your interpretation of Negate Magic?

Interesting question .

Normally the Negate Magic spell is directed specifically against another spell or spell effect.

So what does the mage casting NM sees, a flying mage, a magical force field or... The mage pikes the spell.

If it is casted to remove a magic spell without "seeing" what spellit is -make a random call.

To remove all spells simultaniously, you have to cast Anti-Magic Cloud.

[cornholioprime]

What's your interpretation of Negate Magic?

Interesting question .

Normally the Negate Magic spell is directed specifically against another spell or spell effect.

So what does the mage casting NM sees, a flying mage, a magical force field or... The mage pikes the spell.

If it is casted to remove a magic spell without "seeing" what spellit is -make a random call.

To remove all spells simultaniously, you have to cast Anti-Magic Cloud.

Can't speak for others, but I personally think that having a Mage get only ONE Spell negated, when the Mage had to not only take the time and energy to learn an 8th Level Spell, but have to get close enough to touch the (presumably Enemy) Target, seems to be too little 'payoff' for a Spell of that Level.

Unless the Spell's Author(s) tell us otherwise, that's how I would allow the Spell to work.

[Sentinel]

In that situation, I allow the mage targeted with Dispel Magic, to save for each spell. So, he might stay airborne, but his armour may be dispeled, etc.